Each year 7% of Michigan's special education students return to full-time general education programs through declassification. In a preliminary investigation of declassification from special education, the authors analyzed data collected by the Michigan Department of Education over the past 5 years. Respondents suggested that, as a group, students declassified from special education are academically, socially, and behaviorally well adjusted; but teachers or counselors of 11% of the declassified students felt that these students continued to require special education services. Within 3 years, 4% of declassified students had returned to special education. Particularly noteworthy were the relatively poor results for declassified students with emotional impairments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AffleckJ. Q.EdgarE.LevineP.KotteringL. (1990). Postschool status of students classified as mildly retarded, learning disabled, or nonhandicapped: Does it get better with time?Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 315–324.
2.
deBettencourtL.ZigmondN.ThorntonH. (1989). Follow-up of postsecondary-age rural learning disabled graduates and dropouts. Exceptional Children, 56, 40–49.
3.
DeStefanoL.WagnerM. (1991). Outcome assessment in special education: Lessons learned. Rockville, MD: Westat.
4.
DonohoeK.ZigmondN. (1990). Academic grades of ninth-grade urban learning disabled students and low achieving peers. Exceptionality, 1, 17–28.
5.
EdgarE. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them justifiable?Exceptional Children, 53, 555–561.
6.
EdgarE.HeggelundM.FischerM. (1988). A longitudinal study of graduates of special education preschools: Educational placement after preschool. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 8, 61–74.
7.
FreyW. (1988). Follow-up study of former special education students. Manual of Procedures. East Lansing, MI: Disability Research Systems.
8.
HasaziS.JohnsonR.HasaziJ.GordonL.HullM. (1989). Employment of youth with and without handicaps following high school: Outcomes and correlates. Journal of Special Education, 23, 243–255.
9.
JayE. D.PadillaC. L. (1987). Special education dropout: The incidence of and reasons for dropping out of special education in California. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
10.
KaneD.JohnsonP.AlnasrawiS.FoxW.FurneyK.HasaziS.MeyersH. (1995). Act 230 in Vermont. Burlington: Vermont State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 957).
11.
LipskyD. K.GartnerA. (1992). Achieving full inclusion: Placing the student at the center of educational reform. In StainbackW.StainbackS. (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education (pp. 3–12). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
MacMillanD. L.WidamanK. F.BalowI. H.Borthwick-DuffyS.HemsleyR. E.HendrickI. G. (1992). Special education students exiting the educational system. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 20–36.
13.
MithaugD. E.HoriuchiC.FanningP. N. (1985). A report of the Colorado statewide follow-up survey of special education students. Exceptional Children, 5, 397–404.
14.
National Center for Educational Outcomes. (1993). Educational outcomes and indicators for students completing schoolMinneapolis: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 661).
15.
ParshallL.RudolphJ.FreyW.BirchE. (1987). Special education students in transition: A statewide study. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Education.
16.
StedmanL. C.SmithM. S. (1985). Weak arguments, poor data, simplistic recommendations. In GrossB.GrossR. (Eds.), The Great School Debate (pp. 83–105). New York: Simon & Schuster.
17.
ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ. E. (1992, November). Can “all” ever really mean “all” in defining and assessing student outcomes? Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association. Seattle, Washington. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 266).
18.
U.S. Department of Education. (in press). Eighteenth Annual Report to Congress on the implementation of IDEA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Seventeenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of IDEA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 018).
20.
WagnerM. (1990). Secondary school performance. In WagnerM.NewmanL.D'AmicoR.JayE. D.Butler-NalinP.MarderC.CoxR. (Eds.). Youth with disabilities: How are they doing? The first comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 228).
21.
WagnerM. (1991). Dropouts with disabilities: What do we know? What can we do?Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 226).
22.
WagnerM. M.ShaverD. M. (1989, March). Educational programs and achievements of secondary special education students: Findings from the National Transition Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
23.
WalkerD.SingerJ.PalfreyJ.OrzaM.WengerM.ButlerJ. (1988). Who leaves and who stays in special education: A 2-year follow-up study. Exceptional Children, 54, 393–402.
24.
WolmanC.BruininksR.ThurlowM. (1989). Dropouts and dropout programs: Implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 6–20, 50.
25.
YsseldykeJ. E.ThurlowM. L.BruininksR. H.DenoS. L.McGrewK. S.ShrinerJ. G. (1991). A conceptual model of educational outcomes for children and youth with disabilities (Working Paper 1). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 347 732).
26.
ZigmondN.ThorntonH. (1985). Follow-up of postsecondary age learning disabled graduates and dropouts. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 50–55.
